But Harrington turned down Page’s court suit, saying the questions posed are hypothetical for the moment.

Page had wanted to know from the court whether he has the power to ask government departments for information about savings based on staffing.

Harrington says since Page never actually asked for the information, the questions lie in a factual vacuum and he won’t answer them.

Opposition Leader Tom Mulcair supported Page’s court case, while the attorney general and the Speakers of the House and Senate opposed it.

The opponents said the court had no jurisdiction over a matter that should be left to Parliament to decide.

In his decision, Harrington says the government can always pass legislation to get rid of the parliamentary budget officer. But until it does so, it has to live with the laws it has passed.

“If the majority wants to abolish the position of the parliamentary budget officer, or define his or her mandate somewhat differently, so be it!” he wrote.

“However, it must do so by legislation. Having made that law by statute, it must unmake it by statute. In the meantime, Parliament has no right to ignore its own legislation.”

Harrington added any MP should be free to ask the PBO for an independent analysis.

“It seems to me that by establishing the position of a parliamentary budget officer and enshrining his or her mandate in legislation, Parliament intended that independent … financial analysis should be available to any member of Parliament, given the possibility that the government of the day may be a majority government with strong party discipline.”